Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ON
APPLICATION OF MOLECULAR
MARKERS
SUBMITTED
BY
PUNESH
(2009BS36D)
(Ph.D. BIOCHEMISTRY)
Crop improvement and breeding have undergone a tremendous shift to feed the
growing population in Asian countries. Breeding a new variety by using conventional
breeding methods will take about eight and twelve years, although the release of an improved
variety cannot be guaranteed. Conventional breeding is both time consuming and dependent
on environmental conditions. Novel and innovative methods of biotechnology such as tissue
culture, transformation, clonal propagation and molecular markers, have contributed to the
development of high yielding, nutrient-rich modified or new varieties. Plant tissue culture
played an important role in an improvement of perennial crops. In this article, we have
discussed the application of molecular markers in the plant tissue culture, marker assisted
selection and breeding.
Genetic diversity
Assessment of genetic diversity is important in plant breeding if there is to be
improvement by selection. For assessment of genetic diversity, molecular markers have been
generally superior to morphological, pedigree, heterosis, and biochemical data (isozymes and
chromatography). Genetic diversity commonly is measured by genetic distance (GD) or
genetic similarity (GS = 1 - GD), both of which imply that there are either differences or
similarities at the genetic level.
Published applications of molecular marker-based GD in plant breeding have been
limited primarily to maize, but results should apply to other species. Melchinger (1993)
reviewed the application of molecular marker-based GD for assigning maize inbred lines to
heterotic groups, determining the relation between inbred lines and hybrids, and predicting
hybrid performance. Data showed that GS calculated from molecular marker data faithfully
separated inbred lines into their heterotic groups. There also seems to be promise of assigning
inbreds of unknown pedigree to heterotic groups although a large number of markers (> 100)
and well-characterized reference populations may be needed to obtain an accurate assessment
of GS. Strong correlations (0.61 to 0.95) between Malecot's coancestry coefficient (f) and GS
for related (f > 0) genotypes indicated that pedigree data provide reliable estimates of GS.
Genetic similarity estimates based on molecular markers are expected to be superior to
estimates of f because of unreliable or incomplete pedigree data and because of the
assumptions required to calculate f. Molecular marker-based GD has some potential for
predicting hybrid performance of related lines, but in typical hybrid-breeding programs, in
which hybrids are produced from unrelated lines from different heterotic groups, molecular
marker-based GD has been of no value in predicting hybrid performance. These results
suggest the use of molecular marker-based GD for predicting hybrid performance in crops in
which either hybrids are being explored, such as wheat (Triticum aestivum [Vill., Host]
Mackey), and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.), or hybrid breeding is being practiced, but
distinct heterotic groups have not been developed.
Molecular marker-based GD also has potential for assessing changes in genetic
diversity over time, protection of intellectual property rights, registration of germplasm in
countries having ratified the rules of the UPOV convention, and evaluation of new sources of
germplasm for their potential to increase genetic diversity.
Direct applications to plant breeding, however, have been limited so far to prediction
of hybrid performance. But accurate prediction of hybrid performance does not seem likely
unless gene action is primarily dominant or overdominant, complementary heterotic groups
are established, trait heritability is high, at least 30 to 50% of the markers are linked to QTL,
and no more than 20 to 30% of the markers are dispersed randomly. Molecular markers,
however, may be useful for early generation testing in hybrid-breeding programs. If
individual markers or marker intervals associated with combining ability can be identified
when a plant or progeny is crossed onto a given tester, then these markers could be used as a
first screen to identify the top 50% of the progenies for field evaluation. Although this
procedure would not decrease the time to cultivar development, it would decrease the amount
of material tested or permit the evaluation of a wider range of germplasm for the same
amount of field resources.
An equally important application of molecular marker-based GD may be in the
selection of parents to cross in a breeding program. This application deserves serious
attention because breeders currently rely primarily on pedigree and performance data for
choosing parents in breeding programs. Using molecular markers to select parents has the
potential to allow simultaneous maintenance of genetic diversity and performance. Dudley et
al. (1992) presented one application of molecular markers for choosing parents, and
additional research is needed in this area. Using molecular markers to choose parents likely
will require establishment of a relation between GD and genetic variation, and many of the
same conditions necessary for predicting hybrid performance may be required for choosing
parents. Using molecular markers as a diagnostic tool to survey new or exotic germplasm for
novel genetic diversity also may be possible. It is unlikely, however, that this use will be
possible with random genomic or cDNA clones because molecular marker-based genetic
diversity will not guarantee genetic diversity for the traits of interest. Screening with probes
of expressed genes with known function offers the greatest potential in this area.
Mapping QTL
The vast majority of molecular marker research in quantitative traits has been devoted
to mapping QTL. Mapping QTL is really a misnomer, because what is actually being done is
the mapping of chromosomal regions containing one or more putative QTL. With current
mapping technology, the existence of a single QTL between two flanking markers cannot be
resolved clearly.
Most studies reported to date have detected, localized, and estimated genetic effects in
the same experiment because of resource limitations. Genetic effects of mapped QTL regions
are over estimated by this procedure because of sampling errors (Lande and Thompson, 1990;
Lande, 1992). Furthermore, few researchers have followed up with the necessary experiments
to verify the effect of a chromosomal region on phenotype across mapping populations. Our
purpose in this section is not to review QTL mapping studies in detail, but rather to outline
the steps taken in QTL mapping experiments, to demonstrate the general results that have
been obtained, to outline some of the problems in translating these results into plant
improvement, and to show the types of previously unattainable information that these results
have contributed. The first step in QTL mapping studies is to detect QTL, while minimizing
the occurrence of false positives (Type I errors, that is, declaring an association between a
marker and QTL when in fact one does not exist). Two distinct methods are used to detect
QTL. The single marker approach, sometimes referred to as the one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA), has been used extensively, especially with isozymes. The second approach,
interval mapping, detects QTL by using flanking markers. This approach is more complicated
analytically than the ANOVA approach and involves application of the maximum likelihood
method, which requires sophisticated computer software.
Lander and Botstein (1989) have developed formulae for calculating significance
levels appropriate for both methods when the genome size, number of chromosomes, number
of marker intervals, and the overall false positive rate desired are given. Several statistical
procedures have been developed for the application of both ANOVA and interval mapping.
When the same false positive rates are used, there are few reasons to suspect that the two
methods would detect substantially different QTL. Stuber et al. (1992) compared the two
methods and found that they identified basically the same QTL. Those researchers reported,
however, some advantages to using the interval mapping approach. Because of the increased
power associated with using flanking markers, the method gives the most likely location of
the QTL under the assumption of a single QTL in the interval, and the interval mapping
approach allows ambiguous or missing data.
Once QTL are detected, the next step is to estimate the genotypic effect of the QTL
and to localize the QTL to a precise genomic region. The interval mapping approach seems
superior to the ANOVA approach for both estimation of effects and localization of the QTL.
The success of both methods depends on the linkage between marker(s) and QTL, the
number and type of progeny evaluated, the heritability of the trait, and the magnitude of the
effects at QTL that one desires to detect. Several methods and genetic designs have been
suggested for detecting, estimating effects, and localizing QTL.
Application of molecular markers in breeding for resistance to Barle yellow mosaic virus.
Barley yellow mosaic virus disease – caused by Barley mild mosaic virus (BaMMV)
and Barley yellow mosaic virus (BaYMV) – has to be considered as one of the most important
diseases of winter barley in Europe and East Asia. Because of the transmission by the
soilborne fungus Polymyxa graminis, chemical treatments to control the disease are neither
efficient nor economic. Therefore, breeding for resistance to this disease is of special
importance. However, field selection for resistance genotypes is often difficult to perform
because of unpredictable environmental conditions. Consequently, the application of closely
linked PCR-based markers for the transmission of resistance gene(s) against barley yellow
mosaic virus is now successful and efficient.
Conclusion
In recent times many DNA markers have been developed and are powerful tools for
successful cereal breeding. The promise of marker-assisted selection in crop breeding still
remains but achieving practical benefits is taking longer than expected. The main reasons for
this delay are the insufficient quality of markers (regarding their predictive and/or diagnostic
value), inadequate experimental design, high costs and complexity of quantitative traits.
Molecular markers may complement plant breeding in three general ways. First,
molecular markers provide a reliable genetic-diversity measure that can be used for
determining relations among inbred lines and cultivars, assessing changes in genetic diversity
over time, protecting intellectual property rights, registering germplasm in countries that have
ratified rules of the UPOV convention, evaluating new germplasm for its potential to increase
genetic diversity, and selecting parents to hybridize in a breeding program. Second,
molecular markers through their linkage with alleles with large effects (qualitative traits) and
alleles with small effects (quantitative traits) may improve screens for many traits. Third,
molecular markers will provide the first understanding of the biology and the architecture of
many traits, particularly of quantitative traits.
Adaptation and application of molecular markers to plant improvement will be unique
for each species and breeding program. Theoretically, many of the proposed applications of
molecular markers are viable. The question is whether they will improve the efficiency and
the cost effectiveness of a breeding program. This question can be answered only on a case-
by-case basis. Factors such as cost of the molecular marker technology, turnaround time in
the lab, cost of measuring a trait, etc. all will determine if and how markers are used in
breeding programs. Species in which traits are measured by processing through a commercial
factory or species with very long generation times clearly will benefit from applications of
molecular-marker technology. For species, such as annual grains and cereals, the situation is
ambiguous. One of the primary contributions of molecular markers will be an expansion of
our knowledge of genetics and of genome organization. This type of knowledge obviously
will improve our scientific understanding of many plant breeding problems, but the direct
effect on plant improvement will be intangible and difficult to measure.
REFERENCES
Attardi, G. (1985). Animal mitochondrial DNA: An extreme example of genetic economy.
Intern. Rev. Cytol., 93:93- 145.
Avise , J.A. (1994). Molecular markers, natural history and evolution. Chapman & Hall, New
York.
Baker, C.S., MacCarthy, M., Smith, P.J., Perry, A.P. and Chambers, G.K. (1 992). DNA
fingerprints of orange roughy, Hoplostethus atlanticus: A population comparison. Mar. Biol.,
1 13: 561 -567.
Basaglia, F. (1992). Comparative examination of of soluble red muscle proteins of fifteen
Sparidae species. J. Fish Bio/., 40:557-566.
Basaglia, F. and Marchetti, M.G. (1991). Study of the soluble white muscle tissue proteins
from fifteen Sparidae specieJs.. Fish Biol., 38:763-772.
Batargias C. and Zouros E. (1993). Development and the potential applications of highly
polymorphic microsatellite and cDNA nuclear markers in gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata,
In: Fourth Congress of the European Society for the Evolutionary Biology, Evolution 93, 22-
28 August, Montpellier, France.
Barton, N. H. 1990. Pleiotropic models of quantitative variation. Genetics 124:773-782.
Barton, N. H., and M. Turelli. 1989. Evolutionary quantitative genetics: How little do we
know? Annu. Rev. Genet. 23:337-370.
Beavis, W. D., D. Grant, M. Albertsen, and R. Fincher. 1991. Quantitative trait loci for plant
height in four maize populations and their associations with qualitative genetic loci. Theor.
Appl. Genet. 83:141-145.
Beckman, J. S., and M. Soller. 1986. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms and genetic
improvement of agricultural species. Euphytica 35:111-124.
Batargias, C., Kotoulas, G., Magoulas, A. and Zouros E. (1997). Retorspective parentage
identification in a mass spawning of gilthead sea bream, by means of microsatellite DNA.
Preliminary results of genetic selection. In: Fifth Panhellenic Congress of Oceanography and
Fisheries, Kavala, Greece, 15-18 April 1997 (in greek).
Blouin, S. M., Parsons, M., Lacaille, V and Lotz, S. (1996). Use of microsatellite loci to
classify individuals by relatednessM. ol. €col., 5: 393-401.
Brown, D.M., Prager E.M., Wang, A., and Wilson, A.C. (1982). Mitochondrial DNA
sequences of primates: tempo and mode of evolution. J. Mol. €vol., 18:225-239.
Carvalho, G.R. and Hauser, L. (1994) Molecular genetics and the stock concept in fisheries.
Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish., 4:326-350.
Cox, T. S. 1992. Use of molecular markers for analyzing quantitative traits in wheat. In: Proc.
19th Hard Red Winter Wheat Workers Conf.
Kinoshita, T. 1990. In: Report of the committee on gene symbolization, nomenclature and
linkage groups. RGN 7: 16-57.
Lande, R. 1992. Marker-assisted selection in relation to traditional methods of plant breeding.
p.437-451. In: H. R. Stalker and J. P. Murphy (eds.) Plant breeding in the 1990s. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK.
Lande, R. and R. Thompson. 1990. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the
improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124:743-756.
Stuber, C. W., S. E. Lincoln, D. W. Wolff, T. Helentjaris, and E. S. Lander. 1992.
Identification of genetic factors contributing to heterosis in a hybrid from two elite maize
inbreds using molecular markers. Genetics 132:823-839.
Weising, K., Nybom, H., Wolff, K. and Meyer, W. 1995. In: DNA Fingerprinting in Plants
and Fungi (ed. Arbor, A.). CRC Press, Boca Raton.
von Wettstein-Knowles, P. 1992. Cloned and mapped genes: Current status. pp. 73-98. In P.
R. Shewry, (ed.), Barley: In: Genetics, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology.
Alden Press, Oxford.
Melchinger, A. E. 1990. Use of molecular markers in breeding for oligogenic disease
resistance.Plant Breeding 104:1-19.
Melchinger, A.E. 1993. Use of RFLP markers for analyses of genetic relationships among
breeding materials and prediction of hybrid performance. Proc. of the First Int. Crop Sci.
Cong.
Buerstmayer, H., Lemmens, M., Hartl, L., Doldi, L., Steiner, B., Stierschneider, M. and
Ruckenbauer P. Molecular mapping of QTLs for Fusarium head blight resistance in spring
wheat. I. Resistance to fungal spread (Type II resistance). Theor. Appl. Genet. 104 (2002) 84-
91.
Gurta, P.K., Varshney, R.K., Sharma, P.C. and Ramesh, B. Molecular markers and their
applications in wheat breeding. Plant Breed 118 (1999) 369-390.
Korzun, V., Malyshev, S., Voylokov, A.V. and Börner, A A genetic map of rye (Secale
cereale L.) combining RFLP, isozyme, microsatellite and gene loci. Theor. Appl. Genet. 102
(2001) 709-717.
Röder, M.S., Korzun, V., Wendehake, K., Plaschke, J., Tixier, M., Leroy, P. and Ganal,
M.W. A microsatellite map of wheat. Genetics 14 9 (1998) 2007-2023
Paterson, A. H., S. D. Tanksley, and M. E. Sorrells. 1991. DNA markers in plant
improvement. Adv. Agron. 46:39-90.
Pollak, E., O. Kempthorne, and T. B. Bailey, Jr. 1977. Proceedings of the first international
conference on quantitative genetics. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Robertson, D. S. 1985. A possible technique for isolating genic DNA for quantitative traits in
plants. J. Theor. Biol. 117:1-10.